JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision arises out of order dated 18.5.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal East in Judl. Misc. Case No. 66 of 2008 aris­ing out O.S. No. 1 of 2007. 2. The present petitioner was defendant No. 2 in the Suit. The Suit had been filed for the declaration that the respondent No. 2 is the absolute owner of the suit property described in the Scheduled of the plaint. The Suit was decreed ex parte on 7.5.2008. An application was filed by the present petitioner and pro forma respondent No. 3 under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 7.5.2008. Since there was delay infilling the above application, a separate petition was also filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is stated at the Bar that there was delay of 62 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is submitted by Mr. Ng. Premkumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was suffering from certain ailment for which neither she could appear in the Suit nor could file the application for setting aside the ex parte decree in time and supporting medical documents had been produced before the Court. The learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Imphal East dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree on the ground that the petitioner had not explained the delay to the satisfaction of the Court. 3. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner had been served with summon in the Suit on 7.2.2008; whereas, she produced medical certificates bearing dated 22.01.2007 and 14.03.2008. It is further observed by the Trial Court that the petitioner failed to explain the period from 04.02.2007 to 14.03.2008 and accordingly dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 4. The learned counsel appearing for both parties made submissions on the question of delay. It is further observed by the Trial Court that the petitioner failed to explain the period from 04.02.2007 to 14.03.2008 and accordingly dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 4. The learned counsel appearing for both parties made submissions on the question of delay. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon Annexure-A/1 and A/2 to substantiate his submissions that the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree had been explained by means of the said two medical certificates. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. P. Tomcha, submitted that Annexure-A/1 relates to the period from 22.01.2007 to 04.02.2007 and therefore, the said document is of no help to the petitioner, the summon in the Suit having been served on her on 7.2.2008. So far as Annexure-A/2 is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the said document does not indicate the period during which the petitioner suffered from any kind of ailment. 5. Though it was stand of the petitioner that she had not been served with summon in the Suit, the Trial Court on the verification of the record found that summon had been served on the petitioner on 7.2.2008. The ex parte decree was passed on 7.5.2008 and the application for setting aside of the ex parte decree was filed with a delay of 62 days as stated at the Bar. Therefore, the petitioner was required to explain the delay that occurred in between 7.5.2008 and the date of filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the CPC for the purpose of condona­tion of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. 6. From Annexure-A/2, it appears that the petitioner was suffering from anxiety weakness, restlessness and mental retardation. Though there is nothing to show that such illness continued till the date of filing of the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the CPC, at least some documents were available before the Court to indicate that the petitioner was suffering mental retardation. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2191 . In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2191 . In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed that in the matter of condonation of delay what counts is not the length of delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion. The Court further observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. 7. Considering the nature of the Suit and the short period of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, I am of the opinion that a liberal view should be taken and the delay in filing under Order IX, Rule 13 of the CPC should be condoned. The impugned order dated 18.05.2010 of the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Imphal East is set aside and the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the contesting respondent before the Trial Court within a period of 2(two) months from the date of communication of this order to the Trial Court. The learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Imphal East shall proceed to hear the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the CPC by the petitioner on its own merit. 8. Revision Petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.